Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO, however, broke this completely, as the code
>> has no hesitation about making multiple entries of that kind. After
>> rather cursorily looking at that code, I'm leaning to the position
>> that DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO is broken-by-design and needs to be
>> nuked from orbit. In the cases where it's being used, such as
>> partitioned indexes, I think that probably the right design is one
>> DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL dependency on the partition master index, and
>> then one DEPENDENCY_AUTO dependency on the matching partitioned table.
> As I recall, the problem with that approach is that you can't drop the
> partition when a partitioned index exists, because it follows the link
> to the parent index and tries to drop that.
Hm. Still, I can't believe that it's appropriate for a partitioned index
to have exactly the same kind of dependency on the master index as it
does on the associated table.
regards, tom lane
